Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #714838 > unrolled thread

Iron has two rings of protons

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Iron has two rings of protons Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 09:20 -0800
    Re: Iron has two rings of protons moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-26 17:32 +0000
      Re: Iron has two rings of protons poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-26 17:41 -0800
      Re: Iron has two rings of protons Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-28 06:00 +0100
        Re: Iron has two rings of protons Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 15:48 -0800
          Re: Iron has two rings of protons "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 17:14 -0800
          Re: Iron has two rings of protons Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-29 06:54 +0100
            Re: Iron has two rings of protons Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-29 07:14 +0100
            Re: Iron has two rings of protons Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 13:09 -0800
    Re: Iron has two rings of protons "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 16:22 -0800
      Re: Iron has two rings of protons Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-26 19:23 -0600

#714838 — Iron has two rings of protons

Iron is ferromagnetic because its nuculus has a loop of
12 protons that are coaxial with the second ring of protons.
Both rings have a total of 24 protons, with the remaining
2 protons of element 26 being coaxial with the two rings.

http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/

The nucular structure is described in that link.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#714841

Iron's magnetism is caused by unpaired electrons in some of its
orbitals.  Nothing to do with the nucleus.
Also the magnetism goes away with heat (Curie temp.) which the nucleus
does not feel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#714904

On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 7:32:32 PM UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Iron's magnetism is caused by unpaired electrons in some of its
> orbitals.  Nothing to do with the nucleus.
> Also the magnetism goes away with heat (Curie temp.) which the nucleus
> does not feel.
================================
it   seems   logic for me 
now
I suspect it is not 'all the story ''
one thing is clear for me
it all starts with the nucleus 
and goes further  to  electrons at its 
''periphery'' -  
as a chain of orbitals'' 
in by abstract (that  is on the net a long time )
you can may be -see it more in details  
and   may be do  some   more conclusions ..
======================
Y.P
=================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#715039

moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Wrote in message:
> Iron's magnetism is caused by unpaired electrons in some of its
> orbitals.  Nothing to do with the nucleus.
> Also the magnetism goes away with heat (Curie temp.) which the nucleus
> does not feel.
> 

Furthermore, iron atoms are not ferromagnetic. 

Ferromagnetism  is not formed at atomic level. 
Atoms are either diamagnetic or paramagnetic.
Ferromagnetism occurs with organized  orientation  of magnetic
 dipoles  of paramagnetic atoms
that is cancelled at the  Curie temperature.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#715218

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 7:00:51 PM UTC-10, Libor Striz wrote:
> mmtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Wrote in message:
> > Iron's magnetism is caused by unpaired electrons in some of its
> > orbitals.  Nothing to do with the nucleus.
> > Also the magnetism goes away with heat (Curie temp.) which the nucleus
> > does not feel.
> > 
> 
> Furthermore, iron atoms are not ferromagnetic. 
> 
> Ferromagnetism  is not formed at atomic level. 
> Atoms are either diamagnetic or paramagnetic.
> Ferromagnetism occurs with organized  orientation  of magnetic
>  dipoles  of paramagnetic atoms
> that is cancelled at the  Curie temperature.
> 
> -- 
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> 
> "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
> Miloš Forman
> 
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

This answers the comments by my 5 respected associates, 
M. M. , Bert, Sergio,YP, and Libor S...

Michael Moroney made a half truth:
Iron's magnetism is caused by unpaired electrons in some of its 
orbitals.  Nothing to do with the nucleus. Also the magnetism 
goes away with heat (Curie temp.) which the nucleus 
does not feel. 

Dear MM, It was wrong to rule out the nucleus. The nucleus
is sharing some interactions with electrons in the two rings.
At temperatures below Tc, Curie Temp, iron can be magnetized 
so the ring currents go the same way. Or a demagnetized crystal
can have iron ring currents going opposite ways. Above Tc
the electron temperature affects the ring currents in
12 protons in the Fe nucleus. That electron temperature 
randomizes the directions of the two ring currents.  Each
electron is paired with a proton using 3 dimensions. This
proposed theory connects the nucleus to electrons, as you
reject. Heat affects the nucleus, as shown for iron. 
See Figure 4
https://impuremath.wordpress.com/contraspline/

Reber
Does it have 3 rings when made into stainless steel? Bert 

Dear Reber, Chromium in stainless steel is anti-ferromagnetic.
Iron can be ruined as a magnet by adding poisons, heat, hammers.
Stainless steel is not attracted by a magnet sometimes.
Poisoning iron with Cr does not change the category of
the element iron: ferromagnetic. Fe can be demagnetized.

Sergio, 
you can tell its age by how many rings it has. 

Dear Sergio, yes. The ancient fossil called iron has a shape
built for the ages. More ancient are elements with a 
cube-4 core lattice, Pm. Fe has a cube-3 core that is  
proposed to be descended from cube-4.

Y. Porat agrees it all starts with the nucleus 
and goes further  to  electrons at its 
''periphery'' -  as a chain of orbitals'' 

Dear YP, thank you for your acceptance.


L. Striz. said iron atoms are not ferromagnetic. 
Atoms are either diamagnetic or paramagnetic. 

I disagree, iron can be magnetized or unmagnetized. The
category of ferromagnetic elements is independent of whether it
is magnetized.

Dear L.S. do the experiment: make a permanent magnet
out of a paramagnetic element like oxygen or lithium.
You cannot do it. Your comment about para-magnetism is
wrong. Those elements do not have two rings of protons
that are coaxial. They will react to an iron magnet
but paramagnetic elements cannot make a permanent magnet
for elements lighter than cerium. Maybe dysprosium
or terbium can be made into a permanent magnet, since
those elements have two loops that are almost coaxial.

http://pyramidalcube.blogspot.com/2017/08/periodic-table-of-shapes-of-nuclei.html

Alan Folmsbee 11/28/2018

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#715245

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 3:48:08 PM UTC-8, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 7:00:51 PM UTC-10, Libor Striz wrote:
> > mmtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Wrote in message:
> > > Iron's magnetism is caused by unpaired electrons in some of its
> > > orbitals.  Nothing to do with the nucleus.
> > > Also the magnetism goes away with heat (Curie temp.) which the nucleus
> > > does not feel.
> > > 
> > 
> > Furthermore, iron atoms are not ferromagnetic.                                                Iron magnet hates heat,and loves near absolute zero.Hates shock waves and loves steady state to line up electrons in iron. Bert
> > 
> > Ferromagnetism  is not formed at atomic level. 
> > Atoms are either diamagnetic or paramagnetic.
> > Ferromagnetism occurs with organized  orientation  of magnetic
> >  dipoles  of paramagnetic atoms
> > that is cancelled at the  Curie temperature.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> > 
> > "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
> > Miloš Forman
> > 
> > 
> > ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> > http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
> 
> This answers the comments by my 5 respected associates, 
> M. M. , Bert, Sergio,YP, and Libor S...
> 
> Michael Moroney made a half truth:
> Iron's magnetism is caused by unpaired electrons in some of its 
> orbitals.  Nothing to do with the nucleus. Also the magnetism 
> goes away with heat (Curie temp.) which the nucleus 
> does not feel. 
> 
> Dear MM, It was wrong to rule out the nucleus. The nucleus
> is sharing some interactions with electrons in the two rings.
> At temperatures below Tc, Curie Temp, iron can be magnetized 
> so the ring currents go the same way. Or a demagnetized crystal
> can have iron ring currents going opposite ways. Above Tc
> the electron temperature affects the ring currents in
> 12 protons in the Fe nucleus. That electron temperature 
> randomizes the directions of the two ring currents.  Each
> electron is paired with a proton using 3 dimensions. This
> proposed theory connects the nucleus to electrons, as you
> reject. Heat affects the nucleus, as shown for iron. 
> See Figure 4
> https://impuremath.wordpress.com/contraspline/
> 
> Reber
> Does it have 3 rings when made into stainless steel? Bert 
> 
> Dear Reber, Chromium in stainless steel is anti-ferromagnetic.
> Iron can be ruined as a magnet by adding poisons, heat, hammers.
> Stainless steel is not attracted by a magnet sometimes.
> Poisoning iron with Cr does not change the category of
> the element iron: ferromagnetic. Fe can be demagnetized.
> 
> Sergio, 
> you can tell its age by how many rings it has. 
> 
> Dear Sergio, yes. The ancient fossil called iron has a shape
> built for the ages. More ancient are elements with a 
> cube-4 core lattice, Pm. Fe has a cube-3 core that is  
> proposed to be descended from cube-4.
> 
> Y. Porat agrees it all starts with the nucleus 
> and goes further  to  electrons at its 
> ''periphery'' -  as a chain of orbitals'' 
> 
> Dear YP, thank you for your acceptance.
> 
> 
> L. Striz. said iron atoms are not ferromagnetic. 
> Atoms are either diamagnetic or paramagnetic. 
> 
> I disagree, iron can be magnetized or unmagnetized. The
> category of ferromagnetic elements is independent of whether it
> is magnetized.
> 
> Dear L.S. do the experiment: make a permanent magnet
> out of a paramagnetic element like oxygen or lithium.
> You cannot do it. Your comment about para-magnetism is
> wrong. Those elements do not have two rings of protons
> that are coaxial. They will react to an iron magnet
> but paramagnetic elements cannot make a permanent magnet
> for elements lighter than cerium. Maybe dysprosium
> or terbium can be made into a permanent magnet, since
> those elements have two loops that are almost coaxial.
> 
> http://pyramidalcube.blogspot.com/2017/08/periodic-table-of-shapes-of-nuclei.html
> 
> Alan Folmsbee 11/28/2018

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#715289

Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 7:00:51 PM UTC-10, Libor Striz wrote:

>
> 
> L. Striz. said iron atoms are not ferromagnetic. 
> Atoms are either diamagnetic or paramagnetic. 
> 
> I disagree, iron can be magnetized or unmagnetized. The
> category of ferromagnetic elements is independent of whether it
> is magnetized.

I have said atoms, not huge collection of atoms.
Atoms  themselves are not ferromagnetic.
only their collection can be.

> Those elements do not have two rings of protons
> that are coaxial. 

No experiments confirm the proton ring hypothesis.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#715292

Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> Wrote
 in message:

> 
> I have said atoms, not huge collection of atoms.
> Atoms  themselves are not ferromagnetic.
> only their collection can be.

P.S.: That means, atoms in ferromagnetic materials
above the Curie temperature do not loose their (para)magnetism.

What is lost is the common orientation
of magnetic dipoles  of paramagnetic atoms in magnetic domains.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#716264

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 7:55:00 PM UTC-10, Libor Striz wrote:
> Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 7:00:51 PM UTC-10, Libor Striz wrote:
> 
> >
> > 
> > L. Striz. said iron atoms are not ferromagnetic. 
> > Atoms are either diamagnetic or paramagnetic. 
> > 
> > I disagree, iron can be magnetized or unmagnetized. The
> > category of ferromagnetic elements is independent of whether it
> > is magnetized.
> 
> I have said atoms, not huge collection of atoms.
> Atoms  themselves are not ferromagnetic.
> only their collection can be.
> 
> > Those elements do not have two rings of protons
> > that are coaxial. 
> 
> No experiments confirm the proton ring hypothesis.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> 
> "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
> Miloš Forman
> 
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Libor emphasized that "No experiments confirm the 
proton ring hypothesis."

You are right that no microscope has 20 trillion power
to see the iron nucleus. But evidence is listed in the 
link at the end here. Neon and Barium have nuclear 
shapes consistent with this iron theory.


Libor, please show two experiments where the 26 electron
spins are measured for one iron atom in a crystal.
No experiments show the electron unpaired spin
photograph or map where all 26 electrons are accounted for 
with unpaired spins. It is a theory of Lewis and Pauling
and chemical models. Theories come before some 
experiments.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#714895

On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 9:20:34 AM UTC-8, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> Iron is ferromagnetic because its nuculus has a loop of
> 12 protons that are coaxial with the second ring of protons.
> Both rings have a total of 24 protons, with the remaining
> 2 protons of element 26 being coaxial with the two rings.
> 
> http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/
> 
> The nucular structure is described in that link.

Does it have 3 rings when made into stainless steel? Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#714903

On 11/26/2018 6:22 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 9:20:34 AM UTC-8, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
>> Iron is ferromagnetic because its nuculus has a loop of
>> 12 protons that are coaxial with the second ring of protons.
>> Both rings have a total of 24 protons, with the remaining
>> 2 protons of element 26 being coaxial with the two rings.
>>
>> http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/
>>
>> The nucular structure is described in that link.
> 
> Does it have 3 rings when made into stainless steel? Bert
> 

you can tell its age by how many rings it has.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web